Yea, I never liked the same extension used for .tar.gz."inodes" are unique ID's for each file on a device, which allows for hardlinks, but are limited depending on the configuration of the device itself.

Note: in this post, when I say "extension" I mean the 3-characters following a dot in the filename. When referring to MyDSL extensions, I'll say "mydsl package" or just "package".

Quote

So as a rule it would be a good idea to change the extension on a compiled .tar.gz app?

I'm not entirely sure what this question means (what's a "compiled .tar.gz app"?), but I don't think any changing of filename extensions should be done "as a rule" (apart from possibly changing the official .tar.gz to something less generic, as thehats suggested). The extensions each have a purpose, and mydsl-load reacts to the packages according to their extensions. If you change a package extension from .tar.gz to .dsl you are defeating one of the main purposes of it being .tar.gz in the first place.

I was referring to the case where a compressed extension is built from source. I have several of these, which I load from the myDsl panel when needed. You stated that although identical, DSL increases memory and inode usage if .dsl extension is used instead of .tar.gz. Sorry if my post wasn't clear.

Keep in mind, though, that changing the filename extension from .dsl to .tar.gz is not going to help at all. If you haven't already loaded a *.dsl to run mkwritable, a *.dsl turned *.tar.gz will fail to load because it will try to write to parts of the system that are not yet writable. And if mkwritable has already run, you are not saving anything by renaming .dsl to .tar.gz. The package will still write to the same directories.

The *.tar.gz package must contain files that write only to /opt, /home, and /tmp, where *.dsl packages generally write to /usr

and changing ".tar.gz" to ".dsl". The ones I've built I direct to the /usr/local area. Both extensions work. I was thinking by your post that by changing to ".dsl" it would load differently so as to utilize inodes, etc., more efficiently. Probably not. Sorry if I'm not being clear; I'm doing a bunch of very heady work right now..